Cato Unbound: Ending Cannabis Prohibition in America

Originally published @ Cato Unbound, as part of a series of essays on ending the government’s failed war against cannabis

Ending Cannabis Prohibition in America

The now forty-year-old organized effort to reform cannabis laws in America is on the precipice of major socio-political reforms with approximately fifty percent of the population no longer supporting the nation’s seventy four-year-old Cannabis Prohibition. While reformers have made tremendous gains, notably at the state level, which have placed them at this crossroads, obstacles to full cannabis legalization are abundant and deep-seated in Congress and the federal government.

This paper seeks to identify important areas of concern for cannabis law reform, highlight the factors that have created a positive environment for reform, recognize who are the last and largely self-interested factions in society who fervently defend and/or prosper from Cannabis Prohibition’s status quo, and what are some of the strategic decisions that reformers can implement that will hasten an end to Alcohol Prohibition’s illegitimate, long-suffering cousin.

Important Areas Of Concern For Cannabis Law Reformers

There are several areas of concern for reformers, notably the federal vs. state disconnect in Washington, D.C.; citizens’ illogical fear of cannabis more than alcohol; and the political box canyon potentially created by medical cannabis.

The numbers that frame this political quandary: 75% of the public support medical access to cannabis; 73% support decriminalizing cannabis possession for adults and now 50% of the population support outright legalization (California, where one out of eight U.S. citizens live, nearly passed a legalization voter initiative last fall, only losing by three percentage points). So it can be asserted with confidence that ‘soft’ cannabis law reforms of medical access and decriminalization enjoy overwhelming public support and that the ‘hard’ reform of legalization has now moved into the majority (The recent Gallup poll showed only 46% of citizens continue to support Cannabis Prohibition).

However, even with clear polling data to help guide them away from restrictive policies no longer supported by the public, the Obama Administration’s fifth attempt this October since he took office to introduce ‘digital democracy’ into policymaking decisions by creating a public website where citizens and organizations can post online petitions seeking changes in the ways government works, the president was once again confronted by the publics’ number one question: Why do we have Cannabis Prohibition in 2011? Shouldn’t it be ended as an ineffective public policy?

Recent polls and focus group data gathered by cannabis law reform advocates post last year’s near-victory in California for Prop. 19 (the initiative that would have legalized cannabis) revealed an important and troubling public perception that reformers need to largely overcome to be successful: Almost fifty percent of the general public in California—where the issue of reforming cannabis laws have been vetted like no other place on earth since the late 1960s— illogically fears cannabis more so than alcohol products.

Forgive the pun, but reformers have to do a better job ‘normalizing’ cannabis use such that its responsible use causes no greater concern in the public’s eye than the responsible use of alcohol. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine cannabis becoming legal anytime soon if fifty percent of the public fears the product and the consumers who enjoy it.

Medical Cannabis’ Political Limitations –

While NORML is the sui generis of medical cannabis in the United States (first suing the Drug Enforcement Administration to reschedule cannabis as a medicine in 1972, NORML vs. DEA), the organization recognizes that absent substantive changes in the federal government’s Controlled Substances Act (and controlling International treaties envisaged and championed by America at the United Nations), qualified medical patients accessing lawful cannabis with a physician’s recommendation in states that authorize such is an untenable conflict with the existing federal laws that do not, under any circumstance, allow for the therapeutic possession, use or manufacture of cannabis.

The rapid increase in public support for cannabis law reform is made possible by five factors:

1)Baby Boomers are now largely in control of most of the country’s major institutions (media, government, entertainment, education and business) and they have a decidedly different perception and/or relationship with cannabis than the World War II generation (AKA, the Reefer Madness generation), who, were largely abstinent of consuming cannabis.

2)These crushing recessionary times have forced many elected policymakers to drop their support for rigorous enforcement of Cannabis Prohibition laws. Numerous states and municipalities have adopted half measures towards legalization, notably decriminalizing possession or adopting a lowest law enforcement priority strategy.

3)Medical cannabis first becoming legal in 1996 by popular vote in California. After the nation’s largest and most politically important state adopted medical marijuana guidelines, sixteen states and the District of Columbia have followed suit setting up a terrific state vs. federal government conflict that has already visited the U.S. Supreme Court twice (2002 and again in 2005).

4)The advent of the Internet in the mid 1990s allowed citizens to communicate directly with each other at very low costs, create large social networks of like-minded community members, avoid mainstream media (which readily serves as a lapdog, rather than government watchdog in the war on some drugs) and educate themselves with verifiable and credible information about cannabis (rejecting government anti-cannabis propaganda programs like the controversial DARE program in the public schools and the Partnership for Drug-Free America’s ineffective ad campaigns in the mainstream media).

One of the principle lessons in the Art of War is to ‘know thy enemy’. Therefore, it behooves cannabis law reformers to understand what small, but powerful factions in American society actively work to maintain the status quo of Cannabis Prohibition:

1) Law enforcement – There is no greater strident voice against ending Cannabis Prohibition than from the law enforcement community—from local sheriff departments to the Fraternal Order of Police to State Police departments to federal law enforcement agencies.

Many of these bureaucracies in turn provide most of the funding to so-called ‘community anti-drug organizations’ to create the false appearance of local grassroots opposition to any cannabis law reforms.

3) Alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies –

Historically, alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals companies play both ends of the middle when opposing cannabis law reforms for the simple reason that all of these industries will lose a portion of their market share to legal cannabis.

–Bipartisan support to end Cannabis Prohibition is a political given. However, since the 1990s every single major cannabis law reform initiative that has been successful has been funded by one of two liberal, politically divisive billionaires (George Soros and Peter Lewis). Reformers need to achieve greater political and funding diversity to significantly advance cannabis law reforms in today’s highly divided national political landscape.

–Recognize that most all of the major policy reforms are first achieved at the local and state level, in time putting due political pressure on the federal government to follow suit.

–Cannabis law reformers need to better work in concert with other like-minded political and social organizations that also oppose failed government programs or seek redress for grievances against the government.

–Reformers need to create a far more simpler reform narrative that juxtaposes ‘pot tolerant’ citizens against ‘intolerant’ citizens in the same manner that Alcohol Prohibition pit ‘wets’ against ‘drys’.

–Reformers need to keep directing public and media attention to the serious de-stabilization of the country’s borders created by the tremendous illegal succor of Cannabis Prohibition in countries like Mexico.

–Continuing what cannabis law reformers have been successfully achieving for forty years, which is to say winning a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign in the population, and recognizing that elected policymakers in Washington are not going to be able to lead the country out of it’s long-suffering Cannabis Prohibition without public advocacy that is derived from effective, politically diverse and bottoms up grassroots stakeholdership.

We have to learn from the laws of alcohol, Bars in particular. When it is legalized, we have to have regulations already in place for establishments that will offer a good buz. Age should be 18 yrs or older, (anyone that can die for this country can smoke or drink). Breaking this law would mean instant removal of permission to distribute. And, it’s an old joke, but, if it is illegal to drink and drive, why are there parking lots for bars. No parking lots, if you want to party, walk or get a ride. Anyone caught driving while impaired will loose their license, period. We have to show the public that we are serious about being safe. There are many more items to be addressed, but I think you understand my feelings.

I agree with you Mike! Certain laws should be put in place to show that many consumers are responsible enough to choose the right decision. I also feel that it’s much larger than just being responsible. Our government has turned a cold shoulder toward the moral principle which is:

Whatever a citizen consumes, whether it be any substance at all, if that citizen creates no influence or negative reaction to the community around them, the citizen should not be subject to any enforcement of any kind.

In other words, no harm, no foul. This is the basis for my personal debates with others because the government is not allowed to tell me what I can ingest in my own body. That’s my choice. It’s a judge of humility now. How far will our government go before they finally listen to the responsible people of this country? There are no fancy excuses for cannabis prohibition, only the shear ignorance to positively react from the countless billions lost in tax dollars to an unwavering supply of cannabis. My message to government: It’s time to put on the “Honest Abe” top hats and remember that you too are an American citizen like anyone else. Humility is part of being an adult and admitting when you’re wrong (even after 70+ years) is a step toward bettering your self-worth. As a public official, it’s time to take care of the public. Let’s have some responsibility!

This article couldn’t be more right. Cannabis reform starts with drawing the lines clearly. I read lots of propaganda about Prop 19 which I’m sure discouraged voters because they alleged bull such as “workers will be able to get stoned on the job” which was totally false. Keep the initiatives clear and make this plant free to grow.

[…] Cato Unbound: Ending Cannabis Prohibition in America Originally published @ Cato Unbound, as part of a series of essays on ending the government’s failed war against cannabis Ending Cannabis Prohibition in America The now forty-year-old organized effort to reform cannabis laws in America is on the precipice of major socio-political reforms with approximately fifty percent of the population no longer supporting the nation’s seventy four-year-old Cannabis Prohibition. While reformers have made tremendous gains, notably at the state level, which have placed them at this crossroads, obstacles to full cannabis legalization are abundant and deep-seated in Congress and […] […]

I completely agree with you Mike, but the majority of medical marijuana users would have to drive to get to work, run errands, etc.. So why create a double-standard? I would simply label the package like a perscription: “This drug may impair the ability to drive or operate machinery. Use care until you become familiar with its effects.” Honestly, I drive blitzed all the time, and I have never had a problem with it. It makes you more cautious if anything in my opinion.

Sequestration, the automatic cuts to the federal budget, might get the pro-legalization movement some traction, but I’m not getting my hopes up. The feds would let poor folks starve rather than give up cannabis prohibition, it seems. We’ll see about that.

The only way they will legalize cannabis is if they have no other choice.

They have no other choice if they need the money saved and the money earned.

State and local governments want the income and savings. That’s how state politicians have been moved to overlook the status quo.